Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
When Bush left office the unemployment rate was 7.8% and skyrocketing upward as the country was bleeding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.
Try again.
Indeed. But, some stupid sons of bitches will never admit reality if it means having to admit something about Bush era tax cuts.
The Bush tax cuts was never promoted at the time enacted as job producing, it was giving back from a greedy government. Also democrats didnt want to give it back they wanted to spend it.
Glad we could clear that up for you.
Let's see...A thread about taxes....The usual suspects howling about Chimpola's tax policy and unemployment rates, which were statistically zero during his regime....The tax rates didn't cause the housing crash, fool.Indeed. But, some stupid sons of bitches will never admit reality if it means having to admit something about Bush era tax cuts.
Point out where anyone suggested that tax rates caused the housing crash, you fucking idiot.
nice strawman attempt, I guess.
Indeed. But, some stupid sons of bitches will never admit reality if it means having to admit something about Bush era tax cuts.
The Bush tax cuts was never promoted at the time enacted as job producing, it was giving back from a greedy government. Also democrats didnt want to give it back they wanted to spend it.
Glad we could clear that up for you.
And yet that is exactly how it has been repackaged and resold in order to keep from letting them end.
But, by all means, cry about some dems instead of providing any kind of evidence beyond tired shit from your echo chamber.
You cleared something up, alright. And then you get flushed down the toilet with the same shit you wipe up.
Let's see...A thread about taxes....The usual suspects howling about Chimpola's tax policy and unemployment rates, which were statistically zero during his regime....The tax rates didn't cause the housing crash, fool.
Point out where anyone suggested that tax rates caused the housing crash, you fucking idiot.
nice strawman attempt, I guess.
Then someone throws in the jump in unemployment at the end of his tenure, which came from the housing crash not any tax policy....After which you chime in "YEAH!, YEAH!...hehhehheh.
Great picture of a non sequitur (that means that one thing has nothing to do with the other)...I suppose you could fill it in with all sorts of pretty colors out of your box of Crayolas.
The Bush tax cuts was never promoted at the time enacted as job producing, it was giving back from a greedy government. Also democrats didnt want to give it back they wanted to spend it.
Glad we could clear that up for you.
And yet that is exactly how it has been repackaged and resold in order to keep from letting them end.
But, by all means, cry about some dems instead of providing any kind of evidence beyond tired shit from your echo chamber.
You cleared something up, alright. And then you get flushed down the toilet with the same shit you wipe up.
LOL Such drama! The fact is regulation and the constant threat of increases is holding back the economy. Not to mention fucking over investors.
If you were at least half way smart you would know this.. Ok have another glass. Is todays flavor grape or cherry? BECAUSE EVEN THE MOST BRAIN DEAD ECONOMISTS DONT CONFUSE CAUSATION AND EFFECT, BUT YOU MANAGED.
Again, unemployment was statistically zero until the housing crash...Let's see...A thread about taxes....The usual suspects howling about Chimpola's tax policy and unemployment rates, which were statistically zero during his regime....Point out where anyone suggested that tax rates caused the housing crash, you fucking idiot.
nice strawman attempt, I guess.
Then someone throws in the jump in unemployment at the end of his tenure, which came from the housing crash not any tax policy....After which you chime in "YEAH!, YEAH!...hehhehheh.
Great picture of a non sequitur (that means that one thing has nothing to do with the other)...I suppose you could fill it in with all sorts of pretty colors out of your box of Crayolas.
Pointing out that Bush era tax cuts hasn't created jobs while you laughably get pwned on your use of "statistics" isn't a non-sequiter. ESPECIALLY when your side tried to insist that jobs WERE created during the build up of a housing bubble.
pay attention, you fucking dunce. Just because you are too slow for the long bus doesn't mean the rest of us are wearing your same, coned headware.
Again, unemployment was statistically zero until the housing crash...Let's see...A thread about taxes....The usual suspects howling about Chimpola's tax policy and unemployment rates, which were statistically zero during his regime....
Then someone throws in the jump in unemployment at the end of his tenure, which came from the housing crash not any tax policy....After which you chime in "YEAH!, YEAH!...hehhehheh.
Great picture of a non sequitur (that means that one thing has nothing to do with the other)...I suppose you could fill it in with all sorts of pretty colors out of your box of Crayolas.
Pointing out that Bush era tax cuts hasn't created jobs while you laughably get pwned on your use of "statistics" isn't a non-sequiter. ESPECIALLY when your side tried to insist that jobs WERE created during the build up of a housing bubble.
pay attention, you fucking dunce. Just because you are too slow for the long bus doesn't mean the rest of us are wearing your same, coned headware.
Was that because of the lowering of tax rates?...I don't know and we cannot really know because like every other aspect of Keynesian voodoo, it's not really falsifiable.
That said, if Chimpy had a (D) next to his name, frothing-at-the-mouth moonbats like you would be claiming that the unemployment rate would've been higher (which cannot possibly be proven any more than can the converse) had the given policy not been in effect.
That's right...5% unemployment is statistically full employment....Has been so for decades....Your ignorance of that fact isn't my problem.Again, unemployment was statistically zero until the housing crash...Pointing out that Bush era tax cuts hasn't created jobs while you laughably get pwned on your use of "statistics" isn't a non-sequiter. ESPECIALLY when your side tried to insist that jobs WERE created during the build up of a housing bubble.
pay attention, you fucking dunce. Just because you are too slow for the long bus doesn't mean the rest of us are wearing your same, coned headware.
Was that because of the lowering of tax rates?...I don't know and we cannot really know because like every other aspect of Keynesian voodoo, it's not really falsifiable.
That said, if Chimpy had a (D) next to his name, frothing-at-the-mouth moonbats like you would be claiming that the unemployment rate would've been higher (which cannot possibly be proven any more than can the converse) had the given policy not been in effect.
"STATISTICALLY"
Your assumptions about an unknowable correlation between housing market jobs and tax cuts would be cute if they weren't so fucking stupid. But, don't let those assumptions keep you from quoting them as "STATISTICALLY" true.
Or, laughable, assuming how we'd react if if a (D) were behind a name!
youmad, bro?
Face it, if tax breaks have been the constant, then the drastic fluctuation of employment rates into the gutter proves that they are ineffective in providing jobs. NO one is hearing that shit anymore, dude. You might as well still be insisting that Saddam had WMDs.
But there was no net gain of American jobs during his eight years.
Gotta link for this one?
Aughts were a lost decade for U.S. economy, workers
For most of the past 70 years, the U.S. economy has grown at a steady clip, generating perpetually higher incomes and wealth for American households. But since 2000, the story is starkly different.
The past decade was the worst for the U.S. economy in modern times, a sharp reversal from a long period of prosperity that is leading economists and policymakers to fundamentally rethink the underpinnings of the nation's growth.
It was, according to a wide range of data, a lost decade for American workers. The decade began in a moment of triumphalism -- there was a current of thought among economists in 1999 that recessions were a thing of the past. By the end, there were two, bookends to a debt-driven expansion that was neither robust nor sustainable.
There has been zero net job creation since December 1999. No previous decade going back to the 1940s had job growth of less than 20 percent. Economic output rose at its slowest rate of any decade since the 1930s as well.
Middle-income households made less in 2008, when adjusted for inflation, than they did in 1999 -- and the number is sure to have declined further during a difficult 2009. The Aughts were the first decade of falling median incomes since figures were first compiled in the 1960s.
Do you not see the ridiculousness of this argument?
No. I think we should all give more to charity. Ergo, I donate. I think we should all pay taxes due from us according to current law. Ergo, I hire accountants and bookkeepers to tally the totals and remit my fair share.
Buffet thinks people should pay more to the government. He should set the example and put his money where his mouth is (as he has done for charity).
I agree. If Warren and other uber rich feel they don't pay enough in taxes then I'm sure the Govt will be more than willing to take any and all that they wish to donate.
Hey Asty. Where are you located in Central Florida??
I'm in Melbourne.
That's right...5% unemployment is statistically full employment....Has been so for decades....Your ignorance of that fact isn't my problem.Again, unemployment was statistically zero until the housing crash...
Was that because of the lowering of tax rates?...I don't know and we cannot really know because like every other aspect of Keynesian voodoo, it's not really falsifiable.
That said, if Chimpy had a (D) next to his name, frothing-at-the-mouth moonbats like you would be claiming that the unemployment rate would've been higher (which cannot possibly be proven any more than can the converse) had the given policy not been in effect.
"STATISTICALLY"
Your assumptions about an unknowable correlation between housing market jobs and tax cuts would be cute if they weren't so fucking stupid. But, don't let those assumptions keep you from quoting them as "STATISTICALLY" true.
Or, laughable, assuming how we'd react if if a (D) were behind a name!
youmad, bro?
Face it, if tax breaks have been the constant, then the drastic fluctuation of employment rates into the gutter proves that they are ineffective in providing jobs. NO one is hearing that shit anymore, dude. You might as well still be insisting that Saddam had WMDs.
I've drawn no correlation between the housing market and tax rates...I've only pointed out that the housing crash and corresponding increase in the unemployment rate had nothing whatsoever to do with tax rates, whether they be higher or lower....Claiming that tax rate reductions are ineffective in combating unemployment is just as un-provable as the converse...Too many variables and you cannot roll back the clock to falsify your premise.
Try reading for comprehension sometime...It'll really sharpen up your communication skills.
And yet that is exactly how it has been repackaged and resold in order to keep from letting them end.
But, by all means, cry about some dems instead of providing any kind of evidence beyond tired shit from your echo chamber.
You cleared something up, alright. And then you get flushed down the toilet with the same shit you wipe up.
LOL Such drama! The fact is regulation and the constant threat of increases is holding back the economy. Not to mention fucking over investors.
If you were at least half way smart you would know this.. Ok have another glass. Is todays flavor grape or cherry? BECAUSE EVEN THE MOST BRAIN DEAD ECONOMISTS DONT CONFUSE CAUSATION AND EFFECT, BUT YOU MANAGED.
No, those are not facts. Those are your OPINIONS. When you figure out how to tell the difference between the two then maybe you'll get somewhere in life.
Maybe you can go support another politician that advocates the hemorrhaging of jobs to foreign labor in the name of free market capitalism while crying about regulation. That ironic joke gets funnier each time you wackjobs post it.
derrrr derrrrr a kool aid punchline, derrrr.... IN CAPS NO LESS.
I can understand why you've failed so miserably in this thread.
That's right...5% unemployment is statistically full employment....Has been so for decades....Your ignorance of that fact isn't my problem."STATISTICALLY"
Your assumptions about an unknowable correlation between housing market jobs and tax cuts would be cute if they weren't so fucking stupid. But, don't let those assumptions keep you from quoting them as "STATISTICALLY" true.
Or, laughable, assuming how we'd react if if a (D) were behind a name!
youmad, bro?
Face it, if tax breaks have been the constant, then the drastic fluctuation of employment rates into the gutter proves that they are ineffective in providing jobs. NO one is hearing that shit anymore, dude. You might as well still be insisting that Saddam had WMDs.
I've drawn no correlation between the housing market and tax rates...I've only pointed out that the housing crash and corresponding increase in the unemployment rate had nothing whatsoever to do with tax rates, whether they be higher or lower....Claiming that tax rate reductions are ineffective in combating unemployment is just as un-provable as the converse...Too many variables and you cannot roll back the clock to falsify your premise.
Try reading for comprehension sometime...It'll really sharpen up your communication skills.
You've been schooled by EVEN TORO about how laughable that reliance upon "statistical" unemployment is, dude.
Maybe, instead of crying in defense of your failed opinion, you should try that reading comprehension thing before suggesting it to others.
After all, I can quote everyone in this thread that have called you out on your "statistical" comprehension while you can... uh.... cry about being called out on the same.
....in practice, full employment generally corresponds to an unemployment rate of about 5 percent. This 5 percent unemployment rate, often termed the natural unemployment rate, includes both frictional and structural unemployment.
LOL Such drama! The fact is regulation and the constant threat of increases is holding back the economy. Not to mention fucking over investors.
If you were at least half way smart you would know this.. Ok have another glass. Is todays flavor grape or cherry? BECAUSE EVEN THE MOST BRAIN DEAD ECONOMISTS DONT CONFUSE CAUSATION AND EFFECT, BUT YOU MANAGED.
No, those are not facts. Those are your OPINIONS. When you figure out how to tell the difference between the two then maybe you'll get somewhere in life.
Maybe you can go support another politician that advocates the hemorrhaging of jobs to foreign labor in the name of free market capitalism while crying about regulation. That ironic joke gets funnier each time you wackjobs post it.
derrrr derrrrr a kool aid punchline, derrrr.... IN CAPS NO LESS.
I can understand why you've failed so miserably in this thread.
LOL Is this one of your self pleasuring moments. Democrats do that a lot, so you didnt disappoint.
That's right...5% unemployment is statistically full employment....Has been so for decades....Your ignorance of that fact isn't my problem.
I've drawn no correlation between the housing market and tax rates...I've only pointed out that the housing crash and corresponding increase in the unemployment rate had nothing whatsoever to do with tax rates, whether they be higher or lower....Claiming that tax rate reductions are ineffective in combating unemployment is just as un-provable as the converse...Too many variables and you cannot roll back the clock to falsify your premise.
Try reading for comprehension sometime...It'll really sharpen up your communication skills.
You've been schooled by EVEN TORO about how laughable that reliance upon "statistical" unemployment is, dude.
Maybe, instead of crying in defense of your failed opinion, you should try that reading comprehension thing before suggesting it to others.
After all, I can quote everyone in this thread that have called you out on your "statistical" comprehension while you can... uh.... cry about being called out on the same.....in practice, full employment generally corresponds to an unemployment rate of about 5 percent. This 5 percent unemployment rate, often termed the natural unemployment rate, includes both frictional and structural unemployment.
AmosWEB is Economics: Encyclonomic WEB*pedia
I believe you were howling something about being "schooled"?
Rube.
So, you cannot refute the factual economic information....Thought so.
Get back to your Crayolas, s0n.
When Bush left office the unemployment rate was 7.8% and skyrocketing upward as the country was bleeding hundreds of thousands of jobs a month.
Try again.
Luckily the huge Obama stimulus only wasted $800 billion and kept unemployment from rising above 8%.
the recession COULD have been worse. I guess, with a bandage, you'll never really know how deadly a hemorrhage could have been. I guess you can always blame blood for flowing though.
